You're arguing that people are more dirty and underhanded if they're Republican which completely contradicts your earlier statement about things not being "black and white."

And yes, you and many others are arguing that it's okay because it helps Democrats whether you want to admit (or even realize) that this is the root of your argument or not.

California’s law specifically triggered only if Texas went through with their proposed gerrymander.

Which was only possible due to state Democrats showing up to the Texas legislature and giving the Republicans the quorum they needed to pass the vote. There's no "only if" when the outcome was a foregone conclusion. This is just slimy language to put the onus on Republicans for what's happening despite them being unable to do it without the assistance of Democrats.

also has an expiration date following the 2030 census, at which point the California Citizens Redistricting Commission will resume their duties.

So "bad deeds" today with the promise that things will be "put right" at some point far into the future? I can't believe people can't see through bullshit like this by now as politicians use this tactic constantly. It should be Chuck Schumer's catch phrase by now.

Please tell me you realize these are not the same. If you cannot see the difference, you are either a zealot or arguing in poor faith.

If there's such a stark and obvious difference, why is your whole argument based on faith and subjectivity? Faith they'll make it right in the future. Belief that they're the good guys, so they're doing it for a 'good' reason. You want to argue that things aren't black and white and it's not about party affiliation yet that's exactly what "the difference" appears to be. Where's the objectivity?

Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi released this statement after the Supreme Court handed down an opinion in Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek, which deals with the constitutionality of and judicial role in partisan gerrymandering:

"The Supreme Court's ruling strikes at the very heart of our American democracy. As Justice Kagan wrote in her dissent, the Court's role in our system of government ‘is to defend its foundations. None is more important than free and fair elections.'

"This ruling greenlights the unjust and deeply dangerous practice of gerrymandering, which robs Americans of their right to have an equal voice in their government. Traditionally underserved communities, especially communities of color, risk losing the representation and resources they rightfully deserve.

"The Congress must act. This year, the Democratic Majority passed H.R. 1, the For The People Act, which works to end to partisan gerrymandering by requiring all states to establish independent, nonpartisan redistricting commissions to draw open and transparent statewide district maps after each Census. We will continue to fight partisan gerrymandering, ensure every citizen's vote counts and oppose any attempt to compromise the integrity of our democracy."

https://pelosi.house.gov/news/press-releases/pelosi-statement-on-the-supreme-court-s-decisions-in-gerrymandering-cases

Do you agree that gerrymandering is unjust and deeply dangerous to democracy, robbing people of their right to have an equal voice or is that only true when Republicans do it? Democrats had the power to stop this in Texas before it ever happened, yet they chose to not only aid Republicans in their quest to gerrymander but also engage in it themselves. This is why I don't see any difference.